Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control

WikiProject Physics v t e
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

Removal of decay energies from isotope pages?

I believe this has happened over the last few years and my understanding is that this was some sort of consensus decision, but can someone point me towards the page where this was decided or give me the rundown on why decay energies were removed from isotope pages?

For example, in Isotopes of uranium no decay energies are given in any of the tables. Some of the specific sections for certain isotopes contain this information, but being as part of paragraphs and not in a table, it's a pain to find. Isotopes of americium is slightly better as some of the specific isotope sections have tables with this info, but many are still missing.

The removal of this info makes very little sense to me. Kylesenior (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assess F D C Willard

I like the story as much as the next guy, but I have a hard time seeing how a cat rates as a mid-importance article. 138.234.75.76 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of the atomic nucleus

An article with the above title has just gone live and is in need of assessment. Urayness (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Frenk

A rating of low-importance seems a little harsh to me given the awards and recognition he seems to have accumulated. (Also, wasn't sure where to post this, but was looking for input on a specific aspect of the article already noted on the talk page) Leonstojka (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Evaluate Importance of Particle Physics Experiments

I noticed a bit of inconsistency in the rated importance of various neutrino-physics experiments.

- DONUT is ranked as "low-importance" in physics despite being credited with the discovery of the Tau_neutrino. Shouldn't a discovery of a "top-importance" fundamental particle merit "high" or "top" importance?

- Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory, and Hyper-Kamiokande are inconsistently ranked in importance (medium, medium, and low respectively). Each of these are next generation neutrino observatories making niche measurements on fundamental properties of neutrinos. For consistency, these should all be low-importance, or all should be medium-importance. BRSmithers (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]